Non-realist Christianity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On all available evidence: 1 is absurd and 2 is straightforward nonsense. Nos. 3 and 4 stand up however.

So going further aren't you just promoting the ''Oi nutter'' view of anything contrary to the antitheist line?

[Shaker]

So going further aren't you just promoting the ''Oi nutter'' view

Only when speaking to you, Vladdychops 

I don't consider Flew to have been a 'nutter'; I think the evidence demonstrates that his intellectual powers were a long way short of what they had been, which for someone in their eighties is hardly surprising and not some kind of moral failing. Don't you think that regarding such a person as a 'nutter' is highly offensive, Vlad?

[Shaker]

Flew was an opponent of life after death. I'm not sure his conversion to an Aristotelian God changed that.

Seems that your (lack of) knowledge has torpedoed you again, Vladster.

Reading around the Philosophy Now website which you linked to on another thread, by coincidence I found the following:

In 2001 he [Flew] had phoned to ask about a very brief news item we had just published in Philosophy Now, about some reports of scientific research into near death experiences. He was very excited about the research and whether it might indicate the possibility of some kind of survival of consciousness after death. I knew little about the research but agreed to try to find out more. When I rang back (after speaking to a doctor friend, a Christian incidentally, who was very sceptical about the work) I was astonished how keen Flew seemed to be to find some possibility that the research was accurate. Eventually after long discussion he remarked that because his father had been a clergyman, he always felt a filial duty to go out of his way to be fair to the religious side of any argument.

(Source: http://tinyurl.com/ydavvh36 )

"I was astonished how keen Flew seemed to be to find some possibility that the research was accurate".

Would you say that that sounds like an opponent of life after death, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only when speaking to you, Vladdychops 

I don't consider Flew to have been a 'nutter'; I think the evidence demonstrates that his intellectual powers were a long way short of what they had been, which for someone in their eighties is hardly surprising and not some kind of moral failing. Don't you think that regarding such a person as a 'nutter' is highly offensive, Vlad?

I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God being Aristotelian notions of God with mental incapacity.

That is a much trumpeted notion (particularly arsehole shaped trumpets) that as yet has to be demonstrated
Dawkins had a stroke. Are his new atheist views now to be discounted following the same ''Oi nutter'' logic?

[Shaker]

I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God being Aristotelian notions of God with mental incapacity.

Sorry, can you recast that in comprehensible?

Dawkins had a stroke. Are his new atheist views now to be discounted following the same ''Oi nutter'' logic?

Aren't his views exactly the same after his stroke as before it? If that's the case - as far as I can see it is - then what relevance does his stroke have to anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, can you recast that in comprehensible?
Aren't his views exactly the same after his stroke as before it? If that's the case - as far as I can see it is - then what relevance does his stroke have to anything?

1. Yes sorry
 I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God(In Flew's case these being Aristotelian notions of God) with mental incapacity.

Yes I'm sure Dawkins is still the same zealous fundementalist New atheist we know and love........but perhaps increasingly more in the style of a kind of Alf Garnett.

[Rhiannon]

Regardless of his intellectual capacity, there's a suggestion that towards the end of his life Flew wanted facts to fit the possibility of God and an afterlife.

Wow, that's unheard of. 

[Shaker]

1. Yes sorry
 I'm just asking.
You seem to make the link between being persuaded by notions of God(In Flew's case these being Aristotelian notions of God) with mental incapacity.

There's still an accusatory whiff of 'mental incapacity = moral failing' here. We know of at least some of Flew's reasons for accepting an Aristotelian/deist god - not all, but some. One of them was his perception that there was no plausible scientific account of the origin of life. To believe in a god on this basis seems, being kind, remarkably sloppy thinking for a professional academic philosopher - an ad hoc exercise in god-of-the-gapsery. However, when challenged on the point Flew admitted that he hadn't kept up with the most recent research, that he had been misled by certain individuals and conceded that he had "made a fool" of himself (his phrase) for these reasons.

That doesn't make him some exemplar of moral turpitude but a very old man out of the loop.

Yes I'm sure Dawkins is still the same zealous fundementalist New atheist we know and love........but perhaps increasingly more in the style of a kind of Alf Garnett.

This must be some other Dawkins you're referring to. I was discussing Richard Dawkins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's still an accusatory whiff of 'mental incapacity = moral failing' here.

I'm afraid that must be coming from you....................
You know what they say ''He who smelt, dealt''.

[Shaker]

I'm afraid that must be coming from you....................
You know what they say ''He who smelt, dealt''.

Alas no: it stems from what you call the "Oi nutter" view in #125.

[Dicky Underpants]

I find nothing particularly heretical or controversial about the above.

I'm surprised that this passed with little comment

Steve had written " assuming that there is any reality, of any kind, which corresponds to the word "God"." That is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement for the realist God position. Now what he wrote may not be controversial in liberal Christian circles, but it expresses a sentiment I wouldn't expect you to be assenting to. You, after all, have claimed that you have met this reality, which you call God, or more specifically, Christ. Moreover, you frequently argue for the existence of a "First Cause" a la Aquinas*, and presumably you also think this first cause equates with a reality that you choose to call 'God'.
On the other hand, it is the non-believers here - such as NS, blue and Shaker, who I think would more readily assent to the idea that the word 'God' does not correspond to any reality of any kind. 'God' is, in short, woo. And I'd suggest that phrases such as "Ground of Being" (Tillich) are just sophisticated woo, unless it be asserted that the Ground of Being is normative and creative - in which case we're back in "realist God" territory again.

*I think you'll find that Steve himself is no enthusiast for Aquinas' 'proofs' - in fact I remember him getting quite polemical about their inadequacy in the past.

[Shaker]

On the other hand, it is the non-believers here - such as NS, blue and Shaker, who I think would more readily assent to the idea that the word 'God' does not correspond to any reality of any kind.

Not necessarily; if you put 'objective' before 'reality' you'd be nearer the mark. Surely it's standard Christian (indeed theist generally) doctrine that God is external to and independent of the mind of the believer - this is the realism that non-realism (duh!) denies or rejects. But suppose you deny this and then use the word God for some other thing - is that real even if it's only subjectively true? The phrase 'of any kind' is a problem.

But then it's not even that simple. Consider pantheism, for example, where nature or the universe are defined as God. I think those things are external to and independent of minds; they were around before minds came on the scene and would exist if all minds disappeared overnight. There's always been a fairly robust argument as to whether this is legitimate on linguistic grounds, but a non-negligible number of people do adhere to this stance.

[Dicky Underpants]

Not necessarily; if you put 'objective' before 'reality' you'd be nearer the mark. Surely it's standard Christian (indeed theist generally) doctrine that God is external to and independent of the mind of the believer - this is the realism that non-realism (duh!) denies or rejects.

Happy with the addition of 'objective'. Indeed, it is standard traditional doctrine that God is completely 'other', transcendent, external to the human mind, and beyond any definitions that we might come up with. However, Vlad subscribes to the 'realist' view, and claims that this reality has somehow contacted him - whereas Steve has categorically stated that he subscribes to the non-realist view in opposition to this* (which is why I found it strange that Vlad was in conciliatory mode - perhaps he thinks he's found a friend).

Pantheism has its own thread, I believe I tend to think of it as sexed-up atheism, unless you are prepared to suggest that it is both creative, normative and teleological (likewise with the Ground of Being)


*I believe Steve was not always firmly of the non-realist persuasion. I remember him saying that he "switched from realist to non-realist as often as he changed his underpants" (this was in a conversation (back in the dark ages of St Thad's Forum) about Teilhard de Chardin and Bergson and his Life Force [Elan Vital] if I remember rightly.)

[Shaker]

Pantheism has its own thread, I believe

Don't even ... 

I tend to think of it as sexed-up atheism

... and the peculiarities of the English language leave us with atheistic theism or theistic atheism. Where will it all end.

unless you are prepared to suggest that it is both creative, normative and teleological

Creative - by definition, I'd have thought.

Teleological - I personally don't see how this can be defended but I'm all earholes to anybody who thinks they can give it a bash.

Normative - not sure what you mean here; do you mean something like 'has preferences laid down as morally binding rules and statutes'?

[Dicky Underpants]

Normative - not sure what you mean here; do you mean something like 'has preferences laid down as morally binding rules and statutes'?

Something like that. I'd have to assume that those who want to claim pantheism as a real theism would assume that there is a morality pre-figured in the 'stuff' somewhere, which would eventually emerge as a persuasive force once humans had arrived on the scene.
I do not believe any such thing.

[Rhiannon]

Pantheist real-theist here (kind of) and I see no morality involved. Although maybe I'm more animist than theist.

[SteveH]

*I think you'll find that Steve himself is no enthusiast for Aquinas' 'proofs' - in fact I remember him getting quite polemical about their inadequacy in the past.

Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.

It doesn’t prove anything. If it wasn’t flawed it would, as you suggest, lead only to deism (ie, a god who wound up the clock and then left the scene). The flaws undo it though – the only way out of an infinite regress is arbitrarily to use special pleading for an “uncaused cause” (essentially, “it’s magic innit”), and it assumes that the cause and effect we see inside the universe would also be required for there to be a universe.

Whether someone wants to call the universe “the universe” or “deity” though doesn’t matter overmuch – it’s just nomenclature. Incidentally, Einstein said the same thing I think (cue Gonnagle with his big book of Albert quotes!).

[Dicky Underpants]

Pantheist real-theist here (kind of) and I see no morality involved. Although maybe I'm more animist than theist.

Rhiannon

I'm content to let intelligent believers like yourself subscribe to whatever beliefs they choose (hope that didn't sound too patronising). But it appears that 'wholesome' moralities have emerged in modern paganism (as opposed to Christianity-in-reverse nonsense such as Satanism). That dictum "and it harm none, do what you will" is a good axiom to live by. According to Neo-Darwinism, such precepts eventually arose simply because altruism proved to offer evolutionary advantage over huge aeons of time. Do you see morality as just a consequence of blind evolutionary processes?

[Shaker]

Whether someone wants to call the universe “the universe” or “deity” though doesn’t matter overmuch – it’s just nomenclature. Incidentally, Einstein said the same thing I think (cue Gonnagle with his big book of Albert quotes!).

That reminds me - wee Gonners isn't around these days. Does anybody know if he's OK?

[Aruntraveller]

That reminds me - wee Gonners isn't around these days. Does anybody know if he's OK?

NS or Gordon might know as they meet together occasionally in some place called Glasgow I understand.

[Dicky Underpants]

Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.

I sometimes think the realist God belief of traditional Christianity is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God. Such a belief seems to offer as much to Aristotle and Plato (the latter esp. when 'souls' are brought into the picture). Floo notwithstanding (with her mantram of the 'evil God of the Bible') - I don't see any uniformity in the way God is referred to in the Bible. You certainly see the transcendent God of the philosophers in Genesis 1 and Isaiah (2nd Isaiah). But in Genesis 2 the blighter is getting his hands dirty making clay models, and becoming flummoxed when his creations disappear out of sight. The tribal Yahweh is human all too human, and preoccupied with 'smiting'.
As for the God of Jesus (depending on which evangelist you read) - he likes to call him "Dad" and suggests that double egg and chips will arrive out of the blue if you ask for it when you're feeling peckish.

St Paul of course suggests "in Him we breathe and move and have our being", which sounds a bit pantheist.

[wigginhall]

Nice post, Dicky.  In fact, it's said that the rabbis of old praised the contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians patronizingly call the OT, and said that there was a conversation between different views about God,  rather than a contradiction.   I don't know whether modern rabbis do the same, but again, it's often said that Judaism is less hung up on doctrine.  Hence, atheist Jews don't ruffle feathers or twist knickers.

Paul uses the word 'pleroma', sort of totality, which some New Agers took to using.    In fact, I have heard it in Zen, used rather paradoxically,  thus, this moment is the pleroma, or this blade of grass, rather like Blake.

[Rhiannon]

Rhiannon

I'm content to let intelligent believers like yourself subscribe to whatever beliefs they choose (hope that didn't sound too patronising). But it appears that 'wholesome' moralities have emerged in modern paganism (as opposed to Christianity-in-reverse nonsense such as Satanism). That dictum "and it harm none, do what you will" is a good axiom to live by. According to Neo-Darwinism, such precepts eventually arose simply because altruism proved to offer evolutionary advantage over huge aeons of time. Do you see morality as just a consequence of blind evolutionary processes?

Intelligent believer. 

Well I guess to qualify as a believer I'd need to know what I believe in. I don't believe in anything that has a 'mind' as such. The best I can come up with is that the same animating energy that runs through you and me also runs through the whole of the universe. It's not a choice, it just is how I see or feel things to be. Always have. But I often feel like my theism slips further and further beyond my grasp, it's not especially solid.

My personal morality is largely derived from the fact that I feel like crap when I don't do what I consider to be the right thing. 'Least harm' is probably more realistic than 'help loads' given that the road to hell is very often paved with good intentions. So yes, I'm probably with Darwin - it's survival of the most co-operative.

[Dicky Underpants]

Nice post, Dicky.  In fact, it's said that the rabbis of old praised the contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians patronizingly call the OT, and said that there was a conversation between different views about God,  rather than a contradiction.   I don't know whether modern rabbis do the same, but again, it's often said that Judaism is less hung up on doctrine.  Hence, atheist Jews don't ruffle feathers or twist knickers.

Paul uses the word 'pleroma', sort of totality, which some New Agers took to using.    In fact, I have heard it in Zen, used rather paradoxically,  thus, this moment is the pleroma, or this blade of grass, rather like Blake.

wiggi

Ah yes, pleroma - a word beloved of those heretical Gnostics, I think. I think he also used archons, a favourite of the latter as well - all of which has led some to suggest he was a true-blue Gnostic himself. Did he use ogdoad as well?